Observing of background electromagnetic radiation of the real sky through the throat of a wormhole

Igor Novikov; Igor Novikov jr; Mikhail Bugaev; Polina Samorodskaya; Serge Repin

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 47 references

Observing of background electromagnetic radiation of the real sky through the throat of a wormhole

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read A wormhole throat would show a lensed, ringed image of the Milky Way and the cosmic microwave background, unlike a black hole's dark shadow.

desk verdict A legitimate increment over the group's uniform-sky wormhole work—real CMB and Milky Way maps through the throat—but the recognizable-Milky-Way signature depends on an unquantified 'second mouth nearby' assumption that needs a bound. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.06872 v1 pith:H646KQRL submitted 2024-12-09 gr-qc astro-ph.CO

Mikhail Bugaev , Igor Novikov , Serge Repin , Polina Samorodskaya , Igor Novikov jr This is my paper · ORCID

classification gr-qcastro-ph.CO

keywords wormholeimagingEllis-Bronnikov-Morris-Thornephotonringsgravitationallensingcosmicmicrowavebackgroundblackholeshadowraytracinginterferometricobservation

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper uses numerical ray tracing to work out what an observer would actually see when looking through the throat of an Ellis-Bronnikov-Morris-Thorne wormhole at the real sky beyond it. Its central claim is that if both mouths of the wormhole are close to our stellar neighborhood, the image inside and around the throat's silhouette contains the distant sky of the other mouth, specifically the Milky Way and the cosmic microwave background, distorted into characteristic ring structures. These rings are lensed images of our own Galaxy, not merely photon rings, and they have no counterpart in the shadow of a black hole. The authors argue that such structures give a concrete observational way to tell a wormhole from a black hole, and estimate that a throat as large as the Galactic-center black hole's shadow would be detectable as a source at roughly the hundred-microjansky level.

What carries the argument

The engine of the calculation is the Ellis-Bronnikov-Morris-Thorne wormhole metric, $ds^2=dt^2-\frac{r^2}{r^2-q^2}dr^2-r^2(d\vartheta^2+\sin^2\vartheta\,d\varphi^2)$, with throat radius $q$, together with the resulting system of six first-order differential equations for null geodesics, written in dimensionless conserved quantities and integrated numerically from the observer outward. Tracing rays backward exploits the time-reversal symmetry of the static metric and organizes the far sky by impact parameter: rays below $b=q$ pass through the throat, rays approaching $b=q$ wind multiple times, and those multiple windings map the same sky features onto the nested ring structures around the silhouette. This is the mechanism that turns the ordinary Milky Way and CMB into the claimed wormhole fingerprint.

What would settle it

Image a compact object at the resolution proposed in the paper and compare the ring pattern with a lensed template of the local Milky Way and CMB; if the observed pattern is a smooth black-hole shadow rather than a matched lensed sky, the claimed wormhole fingerprint is falsified. A second, more model-independent check is to determine whether any two mouths are actually close: the recognizable pattern requires the far mouth to see essentially the same sky as we do.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Working in the Ellis-Bronnikov-Morris-Thorne metric (a static, traversable wormhole with throat radius $q$), the authors integrate null geodesics backward from an observer at infinity to a celestial sphere in the other space. They find that rays with impact parameters $b=0.793q$, $0.93q$, and $0.986q$ wind through the throat by $180^\circ$, $270^\circ$, and $360^\circ$, respectively, so one point in the far sky can be seen several times over. Applied to a realistic all-sky microwave temperature map and to the optical Milky Way, this produces, inside the wormhole silhouette, a heavily lensed version of the Galaxy with recognizable features such as the Magellanic Clouds, the Galactic center, and a dark dust band, surrounded by bright ring structures near the silhouette edge that the paper identifies as distorted images of the entire Milky Way. The authors conclude that these structures, which are absent in black-hole shadows, provide a signature enabling the wormhole interpretation to be distinguished observationally from a black hole.

Load-bearing premise

The entire identification scheme assumes the two wormhole mouths are close enough that the sky near the far mouth is virtually identical to the sky near the Solar System; if that fails, the claimed Milky Way and CMB patterns would be replaced by an unrecognizable sky.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

A candidate wormhole with nearby mouths would not look like a dark disk; its silhouette would contain recognizable, lensed structure from the other mouth.
The ring pattern hugging the throat boundary is a discriminator: black-hole shadows lack it, so a matched Milky Way and CMB ring pattern would point strongly to a wormhole.
Testing this observationally calls for very long baseline interferometry with baselines around $10^6$ to $10^7$ km, which current and planned space-ground interferometer concepts approach.
A throat as large as the shadow of the Galactic-center black hole would be detectable with a flux on the order of $100\,\mu$Jy at about 240 GHz, within reach of modern radio telescopes.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

Beyond the paper: the same ray-tracing pipeline applied to other sky maps, such as polarized CMB or radio synchrotron emission, would give independent pattern tests for a candidate throat.
Beyond the paper: varying the distance or orientation between the two mouths in the simulation would show how quickly the recognizable Milky Way features dissolve, quantifying how special the nearby-mouth configuration is.
Beyond the paper: for a real candidate, cross-correlating the observed ring pattern against a lensed template of the local sky would be a sharper wormhole test than the mere presence of a ring.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Colleague,

The genuinely new thing here is feeding actual Planck CMB maps and a Milky Way source into the geodesic pipeline the group built in [32–34], and showing what the throat silhouette looks like with the real sky, not a uniform shell. That is a legitimate increment. The figures are evocative, the multi-turn impact parameters (0.793q, 0.93q, 0.986q) are concrete, and the basic claim—that a wormhole image would show lensed structure inside the silhouette rather than a black hole's empty shadow—is sound.

The loudest soft spot is the 'both mouths close enough that the sky looks the same' assumption. They state it in the abstract and again in Section III, but never quantify it. For the CMB the approximation is basically harmless, since the CMB is nearly isotropic on the scales involved. For the optical Milky Way it is load-bearing: move the far mouth a few hundred parsecs and the Galactic center, Magellanic Clouds, and dust lanes shift enough that the 'characteristic details' they identify in Fig. 7 would not match. The generic wormhole-vs-black-hole distinction survives, but the strong claim about recognizing our own Milky Way's features does not, unless the separation is bounded. They don't derive or discuss that bound.

The numerical pipeline is also under-described: no convergence tests, no error bars, no released code. The brightness constancy for the inner image is imported from [34], and the paper states this, but it means the flux estimate is only as good as that earlier result. None of this is fatal; it is a template paper with modest scope, and the limitations are stated in the text rather than hidden.

The prose has typos ('misrovawe', 'solusion', 'Рис.' for figures), but nothing that obscures the physics.

My take: this deserves a serious referee. The experiment of mapping the real sky through an EBMT wormhole is a clean, sensible next step after their uniform-sky papers, and the figures provide an observational template for future interferometric searches. What needs to be added in revision is a quantitative treatment of the sky-proximity assumption and a reproducibility appendix for the ray tracing. If the mouth-separation bound turns out to be implausibly tiny, the Milky Way recognition claim weakens, but the CMB image and the general idea of a non-empty wormhole interior remain worthwhile.

Recommendation: send to peer review, conditional on the authors addressing the proximity bound and describing the numerics.

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper numerically integrates null geodesics in the Ellis-Bronnikov-Morris-Thorne wormhole metric and maps the Planck CMB temperature fluctuations and an optical Milky Way image as seen through the throat, assuming that the second mouth is so close that the sky seen there is virtually identical to the local sky. The resulting images show distorted Galactic plane, Magellanic Clouds, and ring structures near the throat silhouette, and the authors interpret these features as characteristic signatures that distinguish a wormhole from a black hole. They also estimate the observable flux and discuss the feasibility of detection with space-ground interferometers.

Significance. If the numerical pipeline is reliable and the near-mouth assumption is satisfied, the paper provides a concrete, falsifiable prediction: a wormhole image would show recognizable Milky Way/CMB structure inside its silhouette, unlike the dark shadow of a black hole. The work is a forward calculation from a stated metric and public sky maps, not an inverse fit, so it is not circular; it also gives an order-of-magnitude flux estimate for observational searches. The main value is in defining a specific observational signature, but the robustness of that signature to physical and numerical assumptions is not yet established.

major comments (3)

[Section III (Fig. 5) and Section IV (Fig. 7)] The paper's central claim that the image contains recognizable Milky Way features (Galactic center, Magellanic Clouds, dust lanes) rests on the assumption stated in Section III that "the other exit of the wormhole is in our Universe and lies not very far from the entrance... so that the view of the sky in our space is almost the same for the observers near both entrances." This condition is never quantified. A lateral displacement of the second mouth by even a few hundred parsecs would shift the apparent positions of the Galactic center and the Magellanic Clouds by more than their angular sizes in the lensed image, and no sensitivity analysis or bound on the mouth separation is given. Without such a bound, the specific "characteristic details" claimed in Section IV are not a robust prediction, although the more general statement that a wormhole silhouette is not dark like a black hole shadow would survive.
[Section II, Eqs. (2)-(7); Section III, Figs. 2-3] The quantitative results—the three multi-turn impact parameters 0.793q, 0.93q, and 0.986q and the images in Figs. 5-7—are obtained by numerical integration, but the paper gives no integration method, step size, tolerance, or convergence test, and no error estimate on these values. The mapping between the celestial sphere and the image plane (projection, pixel scale, resolution) is also not specified. Because the claimed ring structures are located at impact parameters extremely close to q, small numerical errors could alter their structure; the manuscript should describe the numerical scheme and provide validation, for example convergence with step size and comparison with analytic deflection angles.
[Section IV (brightness) and reference [34]] The paper states that the images in Figs. 5-7 show only distortions and do not include brightness, and that the brightness of the inner image up to 0.7 of the throat radius can be taken as constant "with acceptable accuracy" citing [34]. This constancy was derived for a homogeneous uniform sky, not for the temperature-fluctuation map of the CMB or the optical Milky Way image used here, and no brightness-corrected images are shown. Since the paper argues that the ring structures are "nothing more than a distorted image of the entire Milky Way," the actual intensity distribution in those rings should be computed or explicitly argued to be irrelevant; otherwise the predicted observable image is not fully specified.

minor comments (6)

[Throughout] The manuscript contains numerous typographical and language errors that should be corrected in a careful proofread, including "considereded" (Introduction), "misrovawe rediation" (Section III), "decicts" and "solusion" (Section III captions), and "microwave" misspelled elsewhere.
[Figures 5-7] The captions do not state the angular resolution or pixel count used to render the images; please provide these details so that the claimed visibility of the features can be assessed.
[Section III] The description of the observer's line-of-sight angle ("measured between the normal and the Galaxy plane, lies in the plane passing through the center of the Galaxy and varies from 0 to 360") is ambiguous; a diagram or a precise definition in galactic coordinates would clarify the viewing geometry.
[Section III] The statement that "the width of the photon rings, starting from the second one, turns out to be smaller than the pixel size" requires a stated pixel scale in the relevant units; otherwise the claim is not checkable.
[References [32-34]] The numerical algorithm and the brightness profile are taken from the authors' own prior papers; please include a self-contained summary of the integration method and brightness transfer, or an appendix, so that the present paper can be evaluated without consulting those references.
[Section III, flux estimate] The flux estimate assumes a throat angular size equal to the Sgr A* shadow, but the conversion from temperature map to flux (brightness temperature, bandwidth, instrumental response) is not stated; please specify this conversion to make the estimate reproducible.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the wormhole images are obtained by forward ray tracing from public sky maps; the few self-citations are for methods and plausibility, not for the predicted image content.

full rationale

The derivation chain is a forward computation: take the Ellis-Bronnikov-Morris-Thorne metric (Eq. 1), integrate the geodesic equations (Eqs. 2-7) backwards from the observer through the throat, and map each pixel to a direction on the Planck CMB map or an optical Milky Way map. No parameter is fitted to the target images, and the conclusion that the throat shows a lensed Milky Way/CMB pattern is a direct consequence of the stated input maps and the metric, not of the input. The paper does cite the authors' own earlier work for the numerical integration scheme ([32-34, 39]) and for the brightness profile of homogeneous background radiation ([34]), but these are auxiliary technical inputs; the central claim about recognizable Milky Way/CMB features is computed here from public Planck and Milky Way data. The assumption that the second mouth is close enough that the two mouths see a nearly identical sky is explicitly stated (Sec. III and Conclusion) and is a conditional premise of the scenario, not derived from the cited work; its unquantified separation is a robustness concern, not circularity. The self-citation [35] for the plausibility of close-entrance wormholes is not load-bearing for the ray-tracing result, and no equation reduces to its own input. Hence no significant circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No parameters are fitted to the resulting sky images; the input is the wormhole metric plus public Planck and Milky Way sky data. The main unstated inputs are the metric itself, the near-identical-sky proximity assumption, the numerical solver's accuracy, and the brightness constancy imported from the authors' earlier paper. No new particles, fields, or forces are introduced.

free parameters (1)

Wormhole throat radius q = 1 (dimensionless units); later equated to Sgr A* shadow angular scale for the flux estimate
Scale in metric (1). Results are shown in units of q, so the image morphology does not depend on its numerical value. It is an external model scale, not fitted to the simulated sky images.

assumptions (5)

domain assumption Null geodesics in the fixed EBMT wormhole background (metric (1)) accurately describe real photon propagation through and around the throat.
Section II; the whole image construction assumes this metric and ignores additional matter, magnetic fields, or alternative gravity effects.
domain assumption The view of the sky at the far mouth is virtually identical to the view from the Solar System neighborhood, because both entrances are close.
Abstract and Section III; this lets the authors use the local Planck CMB map and Milky Way as the source. If false, the recognizable features would not appear.
domain assumption Numerical integration of system (2)-(7) is sufficiently accurate, including rays making multiple turns near the throat.
Section II and Figs. 2-3; no convergence tests, integration tolerances, or resolution details are reported.
domain assumption The inner part of the image (up to 0.7 throat radius) has approximately constant brightness, as derived in the authors' previous paper [34].
Section IV; this allows brightness to be ignored in Fig. 7, but the result is imported from prior work rather than re-derived here.
standard math Reversibility of light rays in a static spacetime justifies tracing rays from observer to source.
Section II; standard lemma in gravitational lensing.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Observing of background electromagnetic radiation of the real sky through the throat of a wormhole." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/H646KQRL

@misc{pith2026241206872,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Observing of background electromagnetic radiation of the real sky through the throat of a wormhole},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/H646KQRL}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.06872}
}

read the original abstract

The numerical investigation conducted in this paper addresses the problem of CMB radiation imaging as seen through the throat of the Ellis-Bronnikov-Morris-Thorne wormhole. It is assumed that both throats of the wormhole are relatively close to our stellar neighborhood, so close that the view of the ambient background radiation by an observer at the other throat of the wormhole is virtually identical to that seen from the Solar System neighborhood. A map of the temperature distribution of the cosmic microwave background radiation observed through the mouth of the wormhole has been constructed as well as a view of the Milky Way through the mouth of the wormhole. The resultant image contains characteristic details that enable it to be distinguished from an image produced by a black hole.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

47 extracted references · 32 canonical work pages

[34]

S. V. Repin, M. A. Bugaev, I. D. Novikov, and I. D. Novikov, Silhouettes of Wormholes Traversed for Radiation, Astronomy Reports 66, 835 (2022), arXiv:2205.10168 [gr-qc]

work page Pith review arXiv 2022
[1]

H. G. Ellis, Ether flow through a drainhole: A particle model in general relativity, Journal of Mathematical Physics 14, 104 (1973)

1973
[2]

straight

Passing through the throat of the wormhole, the trajectories of the quanta are curved. This curvature is stronger, the closer the impact parameter of the beam is to the radiusq of the wormhole’s throat. Further, in Section III, we will discuss in more detail the relative positions of the trajectories and the degree of their curvature. Рис. 1. Cross-sectio...

work page
[3]

Bronnikov, Scalar-tensor theory and scalar charge, Acta Phys

K. Bronnikov, Scalar-tensor theory and scalar charge, Acta Phys. Pol. B4, 251 (1973)

work page 1973
[4]

M. S. Morris, K. S. Thorne, and U. Yurtsever, Wormholes, time machines, and the weak energy condition, Phys. Rev. Lett.61, 1446 (1988)

1988
[5]

M. S. Morris and K. S. Thorne, Wormholes in spacetime and their use for interstellar travel: A tool for teaching general relativity, American Journal of Physics56, 395 (1988)

work page 1988
[6]

Visualizing Interstellar's Wormhole

O. James, E. von Tunzelmann, P. Franklin, and K. S. Thorne, Visualizing Interstellar’s Wormhole, American Journal of Physics83, 486 (2015), arXiv:1502.03809 [gr- qc]

work page Pith review arXiv 2015
[7]

Visser, Traversable wormholes: Some simple examples, Phys

M. Visser, Traversable wormholes: Some simple examples, Phys. Rev. D39, 3182 (1989), arXiv:0809.0907 [gr-qc]

arXiv 1989

Show all 47 references

[8]

Tsukamoto and T

N. Tsukamoto and T. Harada, Light curves of light rays passing through a wormhole, Phys. Rev. D95, 024030 (2017), arXiv:1607.01120 [gr-qc]

2017 arXiv
[9]

Tsukamoto and Y

N. Tsukamoto and Y. Gong, Extended source effect on microlensing light curves by an Ellis wormhole, Phys. Rev. D 97, 084051 (2018), arXiv:1711.04560 [gr-qc]

2018 arXiv
[10]

Javed, S

W. Javed, S. Riaz, R. C. Pantig, and A.¨Ovg¨ un, Weak gravitational lensing in dark matter and plasma mediums for wormhole-like static aether solution, European Physical Journal C 82, 1057 (2022), arXiv:2212.00804 [gr-qc]

2022 arXiv
[11]

K.-J. He, Z. Luo, S. Guo, and G.-P. Li, Observational appearance and extra photon rings of an asymmetric thin-shell wormhole with a Bardeen profile, Chinese Physics C 48, 065105 (2024)

2024
[12]

N. Tsukamoto, Gravitational lensing by using the 0th order of affine perturbation series of the deflection angle of a ray near a photon sphere, European Physical Journal C 83, 284 (2023), arXiv:2211.04239 [gr-qc]

2023 arXiv
[13]

Alloqulov, F

M. Alloqulov, F. Atamurotov, A. Abdujabbarov, B. Ahmedov, and V. Khamidov, Shadow and weak gravitational lensing for Ellis-Bronnikov wormhole, Chinese Physics C48, 025104 (2024)

2024
[14]

G. F. Akhtaryanova, R. K. Karimov, R. N. Izmailov, and K. K. Nandi, Galactic microlensing by backreacted massless wormholes, General Relativity and Gravitation 56, 58 (2024)

2024
[15]

S. V. M. C. B. Xavier, C. A. R. Herdeiro, and L. C. B. Crispino, Traversable wormholes and light rings, Phys. Rev. D 109, 124065 (2024), arXiv:2404.02208 [gr-qc]

2024 arXiv
[16]

A. G. Agnese and M. La Camera, Wormholes in the Brans-Dicke theory of gravitation, Phys. Rev. D51, 2011 (1995)

1995
[17]

S. I. Vacaru and D. Singleton, Ellipsoidal, cylindrical, bipolar and toroidal wormholes in 5D gravity, Journal of Mathematical Physics 43, 2486 (2002), arXiv:hep- th/0110272 [hep-th]

2002
[18]

Furey and A

N. Furey and A. DeBenedictis, Wormhole throats in Rm gravity, Classical and Quantum Gravity22, 313 (2005), arXiv:gr-qc/0410088 [gr-qc]

2005 arXiv
[19]

E. F. Eiroa, M. G. Richarte, and C. Simeone, Thin-shell wormholesinBransDickegravity,PhysicsLettersA 373, 1 (2008), arXiv:0809.1623 [gr-qc]

2008 arXiv
[20]

Botta Cantcheff, N

M. Botta Cantcheff, N. E. Grandi, and M. Sturla, Wormhole solutions to Hoˇ rava gravity, Phys. Rev. D82, 124034 (2010), arXiv:0906.0582 [hep-th]

2010 arXiv
[21]

DeBenedictis and D

A. DeBenedictis and D. Horvat, On wormhole throats in f ( R) gravity theory, General Relativity and Gravitation 44, 2711 (2012), arXiv:1111.3704 [gr-qc]

2012 arXiv
[22]

Ohgami and N

T. Ohgami and N. Sakai, Wormhole shadows, Phys. Rev. D 91, 124020 (2015), arXiv:1704.07065 [gr-qc]

2015 arXiv
[23]

M. K. Zangeneh, F. S. N. Lobo, and M. H. Dehghani, Traversable wormholes satisfying the weak energy condition in third-order Lovelock gravity, Phys. Rev. D 92, 124049 (2015)

2015
[24]

Elizalde and M

E. Elizalde and M. Khurshudyan, Wormhole formation in f (R ,T ) gravity: Varying Chaplygin gas and barotropic fluid, Phys. Rev. D98, 123525 (2018), arXiv:1811.11499 [gr-qc]

2018 arXiv
[25]

Shaikh, Wormholes with nonexotic matter in Born- Infeld gravity, Phys

R. Shaikh, Wormholes with nonexotic matter in Born- Infeld gravity, Phys. Rev. D 98, 064033 (2018), arXiv:1807.07941 [gr-qc]

2018 arXiv
[26]

Godani and G

N. Godani and G. C. Samanta, Traversable wormholes in R +α Rn gravity, European Physical Journal C80, 30 (2020), arXiv:2001.00010 [gr-qc]

2020 arXiv
[27]

K. N. Singh, A. Banerjee, F. Rahaman, and M. K. Jasim, Conformally symmetric traversable wormholes in modified teleparallel gravity, Phys. Rev. D101, 084012 (2020), arXiv:2001.00816 [gr-qc]

2020 arXiv
[28]

Mustafa, Z

G. Mustafa, Z. Hassan, P. H. R. S. Moraes, and P. K. Sahoo, Wormhole solutions in symmetric 10 teleparallel gravity, Physics Letters B 821, 136612 (2021), arXiv:2108.01446 [gr-qc]

2021 arXiv
[29]

Sokoliuk, S

O. Sokoliuk, S. Mandal, P. K. Sahoo, and A. Baransky, Generalised Ellis-Bronnikov wormholes in f(R) gravity, European Physical Journal C 82, 280 (2022), arXiv:2204.00223 [gr-qc]

2022 arXiv
[30]

Godani, Stability of Heyward wormhole in f(R) gravity, New Astronomy100, 101994 (2023)

N. Godani, Stability of Heyward wormhole in f(R) gravity, New Astronomy100, 101994 (2023)

2023
[31]

N. S. Kardashev, I. D. Novikov, V. N. Lukash, S. V. Pilipenko, E. V. Mikheeva, D. V. Bisikalo, D. S. Wiebe, A. G. Doroshkevich, A. V. Zasov, I. I. Zinchenko, P. B. Ivanov, V. I. Kostenko, T. I. Larchenkova, S. F. Likhachev, I. F. Malov, V. M. Malofeev, A. S. Pozanenko, A. V. S...

2014 arXiv
[32]

Kar and S

A. Kar and S. Kar, Novel regular black holes: geometry, source and shadow, General Relativity and Gravitation 56, 52 (2024), arXiv:2308.12155 [gr-qc]

2024 arXiv
[33]

M. A. Bugaev, I. D. Novikov, S. V. Repin, and A. A. Shelkovnikova, Gravitational Lensing and Wormhole Shadows, Astronomy Reports 65, 1185 (2021), arXiv:2106.03256 [gr-qc]

2021 arXiv
[35]

M. A. Bugaev, P. S. Samorodskaya, I. D. Novikov, and S. V. Repin, Uniform sky glow observed through the throat of a wormhole, Phys. Rev. D108, 124059 (2023), arXiv:2305.18041 [gr-qc]

2023 arXiv
[36]

N. S. Kardashev, I. D. Novikov, and S. V. Repin, Wormholes with entrances close to each other, Physics Uspekhi 63, 617 (2020)

2020
[37]

Carter, Global Structure of the Kerr Family of Gravitational Fields, Physical Review174, 1559 (1968)

B. Carter, Global Structure of the Kerr Family of Gravitational Fields, Physical Review174, 1559 (1968)

1968
[38]

A. F. Zakharov, On the hotspot near a Kerr black hole : Monte Carlo simulations., MNRAS269, 283 (1994)

1994
[39]

A. F. Zakharov and S. V. Repin, The spectrum of an accretion disk around a rotating black hole, Astronomy Reports 43, 705 (1999)

1999
[40]

Bugaev, I

M. Bugaev, I. Novikov, S. Repin, and A. Shelkovnikova, Building of zero geodesics in the wormhole field, in Astronomy at the Epoch of Multimessenger Studies (2022) pp. 271–271

2022
[41]

Planck Collaboration, R. Adam, P. A. R. Ade, N. Aghanim, M. Arnaud, M. Ashdown, J. Aumont, and et al., Planck 2015 results. IX. Diffuse component separation: CMB maps, Astron. and Astrophys. 594, A9 (2016), arXiv:1502.05956 [astro-ph.CO]

2016 arXiv
[42]

E. V. Mikheeva, S. V. Repin, and V. N. Lukash, Black Hole Shadow Observations with Space-Ground Interferometers, Astronomy Reports 64, 578 (2020), arXiv:2004.10429 [astro-ph.GA]

2020 arXiv
[43]

Mikheeva, S

E. Mikheeva, S. Repin, and V. N. Lukash, Simulations of black hole observations with space-ground interferometers, in Astronomy at the Epoch of Multimessenger Studies (2022) pp. 292–293

2022
[44]

Korolik, R

M. Korolik, R. M. Roettenbacher, D. A. Fischer, S. R. Kane, J. M. Perkins, J. D. Monnier, C. L. Davies, S. Kraus, J.-B. Le Bouquin, N. Anugu, T. Gardner, C. Lanthermann, G. H. Schaefer, B. Setterholm, J. M. Brewer, J. Llama, L. L. Zhao, A. E. Szymkowiak, and G. W. Henry, Refin...

2023 arXiv
[45]

Maier, J

E.K.Baines,S.Blomquist,I.Clark,JamesH.,J.Gorney, E. Maier, J. Sanborn, H. R. Schmitt, J. M. Stone, G. T. van Belle, and K. von Braun, Simultaneous Six-way Observations from the Navy Precision Optical Interferometer, Astronomical Journal 165, 41 (2023)

2023
[46]

Rodr´ ıguez-Ovalle, A

P. Rodr´ ıguez-Ovalle, A. Mendi-Martos, A. Angulo- Manzanas, I. Reyes-Rodr´ ıguez, and M. P´ erez-Arrieta, Practical study of optical stellar interferometry, American Journal of Physics 92, 43 (2024), arXiv:2302.11925 [astro-ph.IM]

2024 arXiv
[47]

E. V. Mikheeva, S. V. Repin, and V. N. Lukash, Image of a Black Hole Illuminated by a Parabolic Screen, Astronomy Reports 68, 1 (2024)

2024

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [34]

S. V. Repin, M. A. Bugaev, I. D. Novikov, and I. D. Novikov, Silhouettes of Wormholes Traversed for Radiation, Astronomy Reports 66, 835 (2022), arXiv:2205.10168 [gr-qc]

work page Pith review arXiv 2022

[2] [1]

H. G. Ellis, Ether flow through a drainhole: A particle model in general relativity, Journal of Mathematical Physics 14, 104 (1973)

1973

[3] [2]

straight

Passing through the throat of the wormhole, the trajectories of the quanta are curved. This curvature is stronger, the closer the impact parameter of the beam is to the radiusq of the wormhole’s throat. Further, in Section III, we will discuss in more detail the relative positions of the trajectories and the degree of their curvature. Рис. 1. Cross-sectio...

work page

[4] [3]

Bronnikov, Scalar-tensor theory and scalar charge, Acta Phys

K. Bronnikov, Scalar-tensor theory and scalar charge, Acta Phys. Pol. B4, 251 (1973)

work page 1973

[5] [4]

M. S. Morris, K. S. Thorne, and U. Yurtsever, Wormholes, time machines, and the weak energy condition, Phys. Rev. Lett.61, 1446 (1988)

1988

[6] [5]

M. S. Morris and K. S. Thorne, Wormholes in spacetime and their use for interstellar travel: A tool for teaching general relativity, American Journal of Physics56, 395 (1988)

work page 1988

[7] [6]

Visualizing Interstellar's Wormhole

O. James, E. von Tunzelmann, P. Franklin, and K. S. Thorne, Visualizing Interstellar’s Wormhole, American Journal of Physics83, 486 (2015), arXiv:1502.03809 [gr- qc]

work page Pith review arXiv 2015

[8] [7]

Visser, Traversable wormholes: Some simple examples, Phys

M. Visser, Traversable wormholes: Some simple examples, Phys. Rev. D39, 3182 (1989), arXiv:0809.0907 [gr-qc]

arXiv 1989